Alzheimer's is a frightening trend for an aging population. One in 10 people over the age of 65 develops the disease. Over age 85, the odds rise to one in two. The diagnosis is an agonizing death sentence, as it takes anywhere from 3 to 20 years for Alzheimer's to killÃ¢â‚¬â€and it always does. The Alzheimer's Assn. estimates there will be 9 million Americans with the disease by 2020 and 15 million by 2050. If there are no disease-modifying drugs by then, the cost of care will top $1 trillion.

It's particularly striking that the science is advancing despite a long-standing dearth of investment in Alzheimer's research. There are currently 4.5 million Alzheimer's patients in the U.S., and the direct and indirect costs of caring for them total more than $100 billion a year, making Alzheimer's the third most expensive illness after heart disease and cancer. Yet the federal government budgeted only $645 million for Alzheimer's research for 2007, $7 million less than the prior year. In contrast, $2.6 billion was allocated for research into HIV/AIDS, which afflicts one million Americans

Certainly any disease could benefit from more funding, but with Alzheimer's the need for effective treatments is especially urgent. It is the only major cause of death in the U.S. where the numbers are getting worse, not better. That's because Alzheimer's is a disease of success. As people live longer and benefit from new treatments for common killers such as heart disease and cancer, the odds they will succumb to Alzheimer's increase. Proving the point, Los Angeles County just reported that deaths there from heart disease dropped 29% between 1998 and 2003, and from lung cancer by 19%. But deaths from Alzheimer's soared 220%.

I'm not one to object to money being given to research of any type, I find the amount given for AIDS to be appropriate, after all research on the immune system is very valuable, but twice that much should be given for Alzheimers research...and even more for other areas of neurology.

The Federal Government gives less than half of that to all genetic research. the same research that can't pinpoint why my daughter and thousands of other little girls have a faulty MecP2 gene. This same gene is responsible for turning off and turning on a lot of genes in the body-they believe CP, and alzheimers are related to this gene, amongst many others things. It's like having a conductor of a symphony that has every segment of the orchestra playing at once, and is unable to tell them to stop. Instead of music, the child has a chaos in her system. So to research the correlation and to find a cure, would possibly give us back many of our loved ones.

AIDS gets far too much hype, far too many celebrities ranting, and far more funding. Not that it isn't a big deal, it's just typical of our society to pick one "in your face" issue and blow it out of proportion whilst forgetting everything else. So everyone is focused on AIDS here and abroad and the rest of us have to raise our OWN funds for research.just a take from someone in a different boat...

It's just more fashonable to raise money for AIDs. The bad thing is, HIV is a virus, something that we've NEVER been able to get rid of because it isn't a living thing. We can't even cure the common cold. The chances for curing AIDs isn't good. There is always one cure that not many people like to accept- prevention.

It's just more fashonable to raise money for AIDs. The bad thing is, HIV is a virus, something that we've NEVER been able to get rid of because it isn't a living thing. We can't even cure the common cold. The chances for curing AIDs isn't good. There is always one cure that not many people like to accept- prevention.

In the past we have had success inoculating against viruses. Furthermore, since our immune system capable of destroying viruses there is no reason to suspect that an artifical equivalent would not be possible. There is much promising work to be done in the field, hardly something we should cut funding to. Oh, and a cure to aids would probably be easier to come by than a cure to the common cold as there are far more strands, variants, and mutations of the 'common cold' than the HIV virus.

In the past we have had success inoculating against viruses. Furthermore, since our immune system capable of destroying viruses there is no reason to suspect that an artifical equivalent would not be possible. There is much promising work to be done in the field, hardly something we should cut funding to. Oh, and a cure to aids would probably be easier to come by than a cure to the common cold as there are far more strands, variants, and mutations of the 'common cold' than the HIV virus.

I would like to see some one try to convence a group of people they should be inoculated for HIV! I think funding could be put to better use in other places, like educating people about how to prevent getting HIV, or for other health problems.

I would like to see some one try to convence a group of people they should be inoculated for HIV! I think funding could be put to better use in other places, like educating people about how to prevent getting HIV, or for other health problems.

Well, if an appropriate vaccine is found you could simply inoculate the entire population when they are young, problem solved.

There is much promising work to be done in the field, hardly something we should cut funding to.

I don't know about the others, but my desire isn't to see AIDS research funding cut, but research money to the others increased... (Okay, maybe cut AIDS research a little). The heart of the objection to the funding disparity in the OP seems to be a mix between "where your treasure is there is your heart also" and "hey, more people are afflicted by this other thing... isn't it in our national interest to fund that one at least as much as the other?"

I don't know about the others, but my desire isn't to see AIDS research funding cut, but research money to the others increased... (Okay, maybe cut AIDS research a little). The heart of the objection to the funding disparity in the OP seems to be a mix between "where your treasure is there is your heart also" and "hey, more people are afflicted by this other thing... isn't it in our national interest to fund that one at least as much as the other?"

Oh, I agree (except I never want to see research cut, even a little), as my initial response indicated I support the AIDS funding, though I think even more should go to Alzheimers research...if we cut, let's cut from other government programmes and add to research. Heck, I'd even support a tax increase if all the money went to Research, though that's one of the few reasons I'd support a tax increase, and I'm probably in the minority on that one.

Oh, I agree (except I never want to see research cut, even a little), as my initial response indicated I support the AIDS funding, though I think even more should go to Alzheimers research...if we cut, let's cut from other government programmes and add to research. Heck, I'd even support a tax increase if all the money went to Research, though that's one of the few reasons I'd support a tax increase, and I'm probably in the minority on that one.

The key is "if all the money went to Research" - if that was a guarantee, I'd probably vote for that tax... But it won't happen.

You know, with AIDS, you have millions of people in third world countries dying. And you know what? The pharmacutical companies aren't going to be going into full gear and spending a signifigant amount of their money on AIDS research. Why? Cause there would be much more money to gain if they could fix the problems facing richer people in first world nations, such as Americans.

Same with malaria and typhoid fever etc. These diseases affect millions and millions of people around the world - but those people are poor. So do you think that Bristol Myer Squib, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Merck are going to spend their research money on developing effective treatment for use in eradicating these diseases? No. Because there is no money to be made for the things that kill people in third world nations.

Alzheimer's is a very scary disease. And it is terrible to see loved ones suffer from it. But often times, Alzheimers only appears when you are an older person. This is different from AIDS where millions of young people are affected and subsquently die from some opportunistic disease.

In short, poor people in third world nations don't die of Alzheimers because they often do not live long enough to see Alzheimer affect them. Alzheimers is a disease that kills rich people - so the pharmacutical companies are going to invest their research money on diseases that kill rich people. They do not care about the poor. If they did, they wouldn't be dragging their feet and screaming about patent laws whenever someone tries to utilize AZT generics.

As for those PhDs doing AIDS research...where will they get there funding from? Well there will certaintly be some money comming from the pharmacutical companies - but I imagine it is nowhere near as much as what the PhDs would be getting to create Alzheimers research programs. So the government jumps in and grants NIH funding to those PhDs doing AIDS research.

Personally I agree with the above posters who said that we ought to increase funding for research across the board. But the pessimistic side of me says that won't happen.

Alzheimers is a disease that kills rich people - so the pharmacutical companies are going to invest their research money on diseases that kill rich people. They do not care about the poor.

Your statement is incorrect, disingenous, mean-spirited and betrays any sense of charity. I have yet to see where Alzheimers is selective to only those earning six-figure incomes or more! And there are documented cases of Alzheimers affecting "younger" people, even people in their thirties!

Your statement is incorrect, disingenous, mean-spirited and betrays any sense of charity. I have yet to see where Alzheimers is selective to only those earning six-figure incomes or more! And there are documented cases of Alzheimers affecting "younger" people, even people in their thirties!

I believe that the point is that even the lowest sufferers of Alzheimers in the United States are more profitable than the poor masses with AIDS in Africa.

I was thinking that the money for AIDS research was good because it helped people in the United States...Africa can do their own research, they want to be free from rule by western powers, shouldn't they also want to be free of western money and technology?

I was thinking that the money for AIDS research was good because it helped people in the United States...Africa can do their own research, they want to be free from rule by western powers, shouldn't they also want to be free of western money and technology?

The poor here in the U.S. can pull themselves up by themselves. They want to be free from The Man, shouldn't they also want to be free of his money?

Orthodox Christian charities have long been active in Africa and have garnered quite a bit of respect for their compassionate work.

The poor here in the U.S. can pull themselves up by themselves. They want to be free from The Man, shouldn't they also want to be free of his money?

Oh, it is their money, it is not only the rich who pay taxes. And the poor in this country generally get more than their fair share of government assistance, it ends up being the lower middle and middle classes who bear the heaviest weight with the least benefit.

Of course, you're comparing apples and oranges here. Caring for one's own society is fundamentally different from caring for a foreign, hostile society.

Of course, you're comparing apples and oranges here. Caring for one's own society is fundamentally different from caring for a foreign, hostile society.

The parable of the Good Samaritan suggests we have the same responsibility to foreign, hostile peoples that we do to our own. One wouldn't like to be like the Pharisees who just walked on by, would one?

What does pre-existing relationships have to do with what I said? They were individual travelers, they were not states traveling. The parable has to do with interpersonal relationships and conduct one man to another, it has nothing to do with the interactions between nations.

What does pre-existing relationships have to do with what I said? They were individual travelers, they were not states traveling. The parable has to do with interpersonal relationships and conduct one man to another, it has nothing to do with the interactions between nations.

Your exact words were "Caring for one's own society is fundamentally different from caring for a foreign, hostile society." As individual Christians, even as a businessman with money to invest in something, we have a responsibility to foreigners as much as to our own kin.

Your exact words were "Caring for one's own society is fundamentally different from caring for a foreign, hostile society." As individual Christians, even as a businessman with money to invest in something, we have a responsibility to foreigners as much as to our own kin.

There is nothing stopping an American individual from donating money or other resources to whatever is the latest cause in Africa. It is not the responsibility of a government to go off on an altruistic goose chase at tax payer expense.

Your exact words were "Caring for one's own society is fundamentally different from caring for a foreign, hostile society." As individual Christians, even as a businessman with money to invest in something, we have a responsibility to foreigners as much as to our own kin.

Again, we are refering to societies, not individuals. The pharisee was condemned for failing to send money half a world away, he was condemned for failing to help an individual calling out for help in his very presence. You would have us neglect those who seek help in our very presence to aid those half a world a way...I'm sure the pharisee donated money to the temple to help the poor, but he did not help those who were in his presnece. You would have us do the same, send money to a far away land while neglecting those who are next door to us.

Each society is developed for the well being of it's citizens or subjects, as the case may be. It is the primary responsibility of that society to care for its own, it is the responsibility of foreign societies to care first and foremost for their own. Many African states were even given the option of being part of a western state and they, often violently, rejected this. And just as it would be absurd for the United States to demand that Britain care for the poor of OUR society, so also is it absurd for the African states to demand their former governors support the poor of African societies. Independence can be a great blessing, but it comes with great responsibility, the United States has embraced her responsibilities, why can't these other former colonies do the same?

There is nothing stopping an American individual from donating money or other resources to whatever is the latest cause in Africa. It is not the responsibility of a government to go off on an altruistic goose chase at tax payer expense.

Again, we are refering to societies, not individuals. The pharisee was condemned for failing to send money half a world away, he was condemned for failing to help an individual calling out for help in his very presence. You would have us neglect those who seek help in our very presence to aid those half a world a way...I'm sure the pharisee donated money to the temple to help the poor, but he did not help those who were in his presnece.

Global communicate has put those who are half a world away effectively in our presence. If you know that people are suffering, then you have some responsibility to help them. Now, one only has so much money, and so one cannot help everyone, but one must help someone, and I don't think that those who are in the same national borders as we are automatically get priority. Swinburne makes some arguments about these things in his Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989).

Quote

You would have us do the same, send money to a far away land while neglecting those who are next door to us.

You would have us neglect those far away on the sole grounds that they were born within different borders.

Quote

It is the primary responsibility of that society to care for its own

Can you cite that one must care only for one's own to any Orthodox philosopher of religion, please?

Quote

Many African states were even given the option of being part of a western state and they, often violently, rejected this.

Poor children are not responsible for the choices of their dead ancestors.

Global communicate has put those who are half a world away effectively in our presence. If you know that people are suffering, then you have some responsibility to help them. Now, one only has so much money, and so one cannot help everyone, but one must help someone, and I don't think that those who are in the same national borders as we are automatically get priority. Swinburne makes some arguments about these things in his Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989).

I would disagree with your assessment, those within our national borders do automatically get priority. They are the ones who support and who contribute to our society and, thus, our society has a responsibility to them that goes beyond mere altruism; furthermore, if we can contribue their own good they contribute to the good of our society, making their benefits into social benefits...In the same way that an employer has a greater responsibility to give an employ his paycheck than to donate to charity. The poor in our own society may not have entitlement on quite that level, but their entitlement is as far above that of foreign peoples as the entitlement of an employee is above a random person on the street.

Quote

You would have us neglect those far away on the sole grounds that they were born within different borders.

I would have us care for our own first and foremost and, perhaps, if there are resources remaining we can contribute to the well being of a foreign peoples, provided our society can gain some benifit.

Quote

Can you cite that one must care only for one's own to any Orthodox philosopher of religion, please?

Sorry, I can't cite an Orthodox philosopher of religion period.

Quote

Poor children are not responsible for the choices of their dead ancestors.

Even so, why do they have a responsibility to the latest African cause? There a lot of problems afflicted a great many Americans who can't afford medication. If you can't help your brother whom you can see, can you really help someone whom you cannot see in a far off land?

Quote

Poor children are not responsible for the choices of their dead ancestors.

Since we don't live in an utopia, they still must live out the consequences of those choices.

Quote

You would have us neglect those far away on the sole grounds that they were born within different borders.

No. It simply makes sense to help out those in your own community before taking up some fashionable cause elsewhere (to the detriment of your own community).

Since we don't live in an utopia, they still must live out the consequences of those choices.

That's not a very Christian take on matters at all. The Kingdom of God is within us, so in a sense we at least do live in a utopia, and the Church has generally rejected notions that innocents (those below maturity) can be punished for the sins of their fathers.

That's not a very Christian take on matters at all. The Kingdom of God is within us, so in a sense we at least do live in a utopia, and the Church has generally rejected notions that innocents (those below maturity) can be punished for the sins of their fathers.

While it is lofty (and leaves that warm and fuzzy feeling inside) to say the Church historically forbids this, or commands this - it has no bearing in reality. In places where warlords still rule and dominate, innocents will still suffer. And there, practically speaking, isn't a thing that can be done about it.

You still have yet to put forth any argument as to why it is the burden of the American taxpayer (which you are not according to what you have said in other posts) to save a far off continent from itself while there are still major domestic problems in the United States to be dealt with.

Christianity is an individual belief. Individuals that are Christians ought to be compelled to help out others. You have yet to demonstrate that coperations and/or governments ought to function under the same moral system of indviduals.

While it is lofty (and leaves that warm and fuzzy feeling inside) to say the Church historically forbids this, or commands this - it has no bearing in reality. In places where warlords still rule and dominate, innocents will still suffer. And there, practically speaking, isn't a thing that can be done about it.

But we are not those warlords, and while there certain exist warlords in general, earlier charitable endeavours have been successful in ameliorating much poverty.

Quote

You still have yet to put forth any argument as to why it is the burden of the American taxpayer (which you are not according to what you have said in other posts) to save a far off continent from itself while there are still major domestic problems in the United States to be dealt with.

My points were entirely limited to the duties of individual Christians, going from the drug company CEOs brought up. And yes, corporations do have a responsibility, since they are ultimately steered by individuals with capital amassed in quite a different way than from sundry taxpayers. And as for taxes, as I still have a U.S. passport, I am theoretically bound to pay taxes, were my income to just get over a certain level.

Your statement is incorrect, disingenous, mean-spirited and betrays any sense of charity. Â I have yet to see where Alzheimers is selective to only those earning six-figure incomes or more! Â And there are documented cases of Alzheimers affecting "younger" people, even people in their thirties! Â

Scamandrius

I suspect that you might be misunderstanding what I am trying to get at. And I appreciate your zeal towards charity. That is a good thing. Let me try to elaborate to you what I am trying to say.

Are there young people who suffer from Alzheimers?

Yes. Certaintly.

Does Alzheimers affect both the poor and the rich?

Yes.

Now, if you were the CEO of a big pharmacutical giant...let's say Merck or Pfizer, where do you invest your research money? AIDS research or Alzheimer's research?

You are going to tell your company scientist and technicians to research Alzheimers related issues and invest the bulk of your money towards Alzheimer's research. Furthermore, you would also fund projects at big univeristies and colleges done by PhDs who are doing research that might somehow benefit or help your own projects on Alzheimers.

You might ask, "Why Alzheimers and not AIDS?"

Cause Alzheimers predominantly affects people in first world countries.

Why first world countries?

Because unfortenately, poor people in third world nations do not live long as Americans. They die from AIDS, malaria, typhoid, malnutrition, etc. Â You see the large majority of Alzheimers cases in older people - people who live long enough to show the signs and symptoms of Alzheimers. And make no mistake about it, there is more profit to be made from rich people than the poor people. As a American or Eurupean pharmacutical giant, you can get money from Medicare and Medicaid or some sort of national healthcare system they have in Europe. You can get money from health insurance companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, Aetna, AmeriCare, and HMOs. In response to your comment that, "I have yet to see where Alzheimers is selective to only those earning six-figure incomes or more!" I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to get at. If you are born in America, chances are, you are much wealthier than the rest of the world and will have a longer life span than many people around the world. You have access to hospitals and doctors.

You can't make a lot of money from poorer people, so as a pharmacutical company, you have much less incentive to fund PhDs who are trying to do AIDS research. Instead, you concentrate your resources on developing products that will yield much more profits and dollars for you - even though AIDS is killing many millions of young people around the world. Basically, you cater to the health problems facing richer people. (ie Americans, Western Europeans etc.)

Pharmacutical companies are there to turn a profit for their shareholders. They are there to report to Wall Street that their third quater profits were up 10%. They are there to make money. They are not as alturistic organizations as some people make them out to be. They do not care about the health problems facing poor people. They will care about the problems facing us wealthier people living in first world industrialized countries - cause we have more money.

The government knows that the private sector is funding a lot of money into potentially lucrative projects, such as Alzheimers. Those researchers studying AIDS aren't going to get as much research money from pharm companies as those researchers doing Alzheimers research. AIDS might be devestating, but it is not as lucrative to cure as Alzheimers. So government organizations like NIH are going to jump in and fund those PhDs who are doing AIDS research - as well as also funding Alzheimer's research.

With that said, I'd like to see there be more money for research in both Alzheimers and AIDS. We have an obligation towards both our friends and family at home who are suffering from Alzheimers, and also an obligation towards those who are less fourtenate than us.

But we are not those warlords, and while there certain exist warlords in general, earlier charitable endeavours have been successful in ameliorating much poverty.

But why go off on a wild goose chase when there are domestic ills right here? Next time you are back in the USA volunteer at a county clinic and you might also start to question the logic of sending billions to Africa.

Quote

My points were entirely limited to the duties of individual Christians, going from the drug company CEOs brought up.

That is assuming that said people are practicing Christians. You can't force your morality upon others.

For that matter, drug companies share the plight of trial lawyers - eveybody hates them until they need them. For most of my dad's life he has worked at county clinics that serve the poorest of the poor here. In cooperation with drug companies and medical professionals, huge amounts of medication and medical services have been given away. Of course it doesn't make the evening news like the trendy stories in Africa...."Average pharmacist is able to give a poor, inner city expectant mother the pre-natal drugs she needs that were donated by the big drug companies"

Quote

And as for taxes, as I still have a U.S. passport, I am theoretically bound to pay taxes, were my income to just get over a certain level.

Only if your income is made in the United States. So as long as you live abroad, you are just whining about how the government should spend somebody else's money.

I suspect that you might be misunderstanding what I am trying to get at. And I appreciate your zeal towards charity. That is a good thing. Let me try to elaborate to you what I am trying to say.

Are there young people who suffer from Alzheimers?

Yes. Certaintly.

Does Alzheimers affect both the poor and the rich?

Yes.

Now, if you were the CEO of a big pharmacutical giant...let's say Merck or Pfizer, where do you invest your research money? AIDS research or Alzheimer's research?

I will not be drawn into hypothetical arguments. The fact is you labeled persons stricken with Alzheimers to be of a certain demographic and, as a result considering your other posts, are not deserving to be treated with such compassion. Do they suffer any less than people stricken with AIDS? NO! If we were to base charity and compassion to people who have suffered the most, where do we draw the line? Victims of genocide? People with malignant cancers? Where?

Forgive me if I wax righteous. I'm anything but! It's just that I've seen what Alzheimers can do, up close and personal!

I will not be drawn into hypothetical arguments.Â The fact is you labeled persons stricken with Alzheimers to be of a certain demographic and, as a result considering your other posts, are not deserving to be treated with such compassion.Â Do they suffer any less than people stricken with AIDS?Â NO!Â If we were to base charity and compassion to people who have suffered the most, where do we draw the line?Â Victims of genocide?Â People with malignant cancers?Â Where?

Forgive me if I wax righteous.Â I'm anything but!Â It's just that I've seen what Alzheimers can do, up close and personal!

All your prayers needed!

Scamandrius

No, I think you are right to have a zeal for compassion. Any disease causes tremedous hardship on the patient and the family of the patient. But I must confess to you that I do not a lot of sympathy for pharmacutical companies. They are cherry pick what research they want to do. They are selectively helping people based on how much potential profit they can reap.